pl_matchweek_matches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context beyond these: 'Auth: none needed' and the concrete return shape including pagination and data fields. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of three short lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, immediately followed by the return type and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete: it provides the return shape, auth requirement, and relationship to a sibling. It lacks explicit details on pagination mechanics (e.g., how to page through results beyond the limit parameter), but the presence of a pagination field in the return and the limit parameter in the schema partially cover this. Overall, it is adequate with only minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (mw, cid, sid, limit) already described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond mentioning matchweek, but it does imply that cid, sid, and mw are path-based parameters via 'v1 path alternative'. This is minimal added value, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as fetching 'Matches for one matchweek' and explicitly positions it as a 'v1 path alternative to pl_matches?matchweek=', distinguishing it from sibling tools. The verb and resource scoping are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating this is an alternative to pl_matches?matchweek=, implying when this path-based route might be preferred. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.